S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

condoned and appeal is proceeded for hearing. 4. The grounds raised by parties are as under: Assessee’s ITA No. 11/Ind/2019 for AY 2012-13: Page 2 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

condoned and appeal is proceeded for hearing. 4. The grounds raised by parties are as under: Assessee’s ITA No. 11/Ind/2019 for AY 2012-13: Page 2 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

condoned and appeal is proceeded for hearing. 4. The grounds raised by parties are as under: Assessee’s ITA No. 11/Ind/2019 for AY 2012-13: Page 2 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

condoned and appeal is proceeded for hearing. 4. The grounds raised by parties are as under: Assessee’s ITA No. 11/Ind/2019 for AY 2012-13: Page 2 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

condoned and appeal is proceeded for hearing. 4. The grounds raised by parties are as under: Assessee’s ITA No. 11/Ind/2019 for AY 2012-13: Page 2 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

condoned and appeal is proceeded for hearing. 4. The grounds raised by parties are as under: Assessee’s ITA No. 11/Ind/2019 for AY 2012-13: Page 2 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

254) -Delay 701 days\nMay it please your honours,\n1. The appellant submits that the order of the ld CIT(A) for A.Y. 2013-14 is dated\n09.06.2023. The appellant was required to file appeal by 08.08.2023. Further, the\nappeal could have been filed on 09.07.2025 resulting in delay of 701 days. The\nappeal could not be filed in time

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

254) -Delay 701 days\nMay it please your honours,\n1. The appellant submits that the order of the ld CIT(A) for A.Y. 2013-14 is dated\n09.06.2023. The appellant was required to file appeal by 08.08.2023. Further, the\nappeal could have been filed on 09.07.2025 resulting in delay of 701 days. The\nappeal could not be filed in time

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

254) -Delay 701 days\nMay it please your honours,\n1. The appellant submits that the order of the ld CIT(A) for A.Y. 2013-14 is dated\n09.06.2023. The appellant was required to file appeal by 08.08.2023. Further, the\nappeal could have been filed on 09.07.2025 resulting in delay of 701 days. The\nappeal could not be filed in time

RAMCHANDRA MANGILAL SARATHE,KHANDWA vs. ITO-I KHANDWA, KHANDWA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniramchandra Mangilal Ito-1 Sarathe Khandwa Gram Mathela Vs. Khandwa

1 of 5 Ramchandra Mangilal Page 2 of 5 3. There is a delay of 1003 days in filing present appeal and assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by an affidavit. The assesse has explained the cause of delay in the application as under: “From: Ramchandra Mangilal Sarathe Date: 24.05.2012 Address: Village, Mathela, Dist

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

254) -Delay 701 days\nMay it please your honours,\n1. The appellant submits that the order of the ld CIT(A) for A.Y. 2013-14 is dated\n09.06.2023. The appellant was required to file appeal by 08.08.2023. Further, the\nappeal could have been filed on 09.07.2025 resulting in delay of 701 days. The\nappeal could not be filed in time

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

254 of the\nAct by adjudicating the issue relating to the validity of reopening of\nassessment, when the CIT(A) had not decided the said issue on the merits of\nthe matter. It was vehemently contended that the CIT(A) erred in granting\nrelief to the assessee under section 80-1 of the Act on sum of Rs.9.89 crores\nignoring

MADHYA PRADESH POLICE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

1)\nThe appellant\n(2)\nThe respondent\n(3)\nCIT\n(4)\nCIT(A)\n(5)\nDepartmental Representative\n(6)\nGuard File\nSd/-\n(B.M. BIYANI)\nACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nBy order\nSr. Private Secretary\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal\nIndore Bench, Indore", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee, Madhya Pradesh Police Housing Corporation Ltd., filed an appeal against an order which arose from

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” Accordingly the appeal filed by the assesse on 04.03.2022 is treated as within the limitation. The assesse has raised following grounds: “1. That the order of the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore u/s 263 of the Act is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 2. That the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income

ANDRITZ HYDRO P LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 was filed on 30.11.2014 declaring income of Rs.18,14,79,168/- which was set off entirely against the brought forward loss

RAMESH NANJUNDIAH DEVARYASAMUDRAM,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal is hereby DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2010-11 Ramesh Nanjundiah Ito 2(1) Devaryasamudram, Bhopal 101, Ground Floor, बनाम/ Plot No.7, Pooja Vihar, Vs. Sirsi Road Bishnawal, Jhotwara, S.O. Jaipur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Adupd0388H Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2025

condonation of delay in filing the appeal It is respectfully submitted that there has been a delay of appeal .... days in filing the present For AY 2010-11, an order was passed under section 143(3) by ITO-2(1), Bhopal, on 21-03-2013. The order was appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who passed an order

NEEL KUMAR AJMERA ,INDORE vs. THE A.C.I.T 4 (1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

254 r.w.s.143(3) re-determining total income at Rs.\n5,36,68,995/- after adjudication of set aside asides. Aggrieved by this\norder of fresh assessment, the assessee again went in first-appeal\nbefore CIT(A) in Appeal No. IT-10867/17-18. The CIT(A), vide\nimpugned order dated 20.02.2019, dismissed assessee's appeal for\nnon-prosecution and upheld

DCIT-4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. MARAL OVERSEAS LTD, KHARGONE

In the result, the “Impugned

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshideputy Commissioner Of Maral Overseas Ltd. बनाम/ Income Tax- 4(1) Maral Srovar, V & Po, Vs. Indore Khalbujurg, Kasrawad, Khargone, Bhopal (Pan: Aaccm0230B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Satyajeet Goyal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026

254 of the I.T. Act as well as the submissions of the appellant. T ITAT had Page 23 of 56 Maral Overseas Ltd. ITA No. 569/Ind/2025 - A.Y.1992-93 remanded the case for the limited purpose of verification as to whether fresh share capital was linked to the setting up of the project, and if so, the AO was directed to give